If you watched the big Cunningham-Hunter debate on Incrementalism vs. Immediatism, you may have seen CBR Executive Director Gregg Cunningham announce that CBR would no longer include the following statement in it’s Volunteer Agreement for the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) and other projects:

If asked a secular question, I will give only a secular answer, not a spiritual answer.  I will give spiritual answers only in response to a spiritual question or comment.  (Note:  Many people reject spiritual answers and use them to change the conversation or to discredit the pro-life position.)

Yes, this is going away, but I wanted to clarify the confusion about what it meant and why it was included in our Volunteer Agreement in the first place.

First of all, this was in no way a prohibition to sharing the Gospel.  In our GAP training, which we call the Pro Life Training Academy (PLTA), we routinely remind people that God commands us to share the Gospel.  I have shared my Faith at GAP on many occasions.  Other staff and volunteers have done the same.

But if a student asks why abortion is wrong, it is pointless to reply, “The Bible says, ‘Thou shalt not kill’”  Three reasons:

1. If the student does not accept the authority of Scripture, then such a pronouncement won’t be very compelling to him.  We have to reach him where he is and go from there, just like Paul did in Athens (Acts 17:16-34).  He preached the Jewish Scripture to the Jews, who accepted the authority of Scripture.  But with the Athenians, he stared with a frame of reference they would understand.
2. In most cases, the student likely already accepts the premise that killing a human being is immoral.  (Even atheists agree that killing 6 million Jews is immoral.)  He just disagrees that the preborn child is morally equivalent to a born person.  Most often, his mistake is not a belief that killing is OK, but is rather a belief that preborn children are somehow subhuman.
3. People mistakenly believe our opposition to abortion is just a religious tenant that should remain a matter of personal discretion, much like our belief in keeping the Sabbath.  But we don’t oppose legalized abortion because it violates our religious beliefs; we oppose legalized abortion because it unjustly kills another human being.  That is a much different argument, and we need to make that point crystal clear.

Of course we can also share the Gospel, but we can make a compelling arguments against abortion that don’t depend on a belief in Scripture to be credible.

Some people want CBR to be focus primarily on evangelism.  But if we were to do that, what version of evangelical message would we adopt?  Would it be a Catholic version?  A Baptist version?  A Lutheran version?

We don’t have a theological statement, nor do we proscribe an evangelical approach that all must embrace.  We, like others in the pro-life movement, work with Catholics, Protestants, non-denominational, and even anti-denominational Christians to witness against the evil of child sacrifice.  When it comes to sharing the Gospel; we have to believe that every Christian is being trained (or should be trained) how to do this within their own particular Church.  (Full disclosure: On occasion, atheists have volunteered to help with our outreaches to secular audiences, and we have accepted their help.)

There need to be places in the pro-life movement — and we believe CBR should be one of those places — where Christians of good will can come together to fight a common foe, which is child sacrifice.  Otherwise, we end up fighting each other… about Catholic vs. Protestant, Calvinist vs. Arminian, Latin liturgy vs. Southern drawl, King-James-only (KJO) vs. Nearly Inspired Version (NIV), etc., etc. etc.  The list of issues that could divide us, if we let them, is endless.

If you don’t agree, if you believe your pro-life-ism cannot be separated from your particular brand of Christianity, and if you can’t work with other Christians outside your own particular brand, then there is still a place for you in the movement.  But CBR won’t be that place, because our mission transcends denominational boundaries.

That is not a statement of judgement against denominational pro-life work.  To the contrary; we wish every “pro-life” church would join this fight, as a part of the mission of that church.  And true to our calling, we will make our abortion images available to you and support your denominational pro-life mission in every way possible.

CBR’s husband-and-wife team Bill and Jeanette Schultz.

by Jacqueline Hawkins

We are pleased to welcome Bill and Jeanette Schultz of Raleigh, North Carolina, to the CBR family.  Hitting the ground running on Day 1, they have already spearheaded a number of CBR projects, including a GAP at Fayetteville State, Choice Chains at NC State and Wake Technical Community College, a School Choice project outside Millbrook High School, and a Pro-Life Training Academy for Raleigh-area activists.

Bill and Jeanette are formerly the owners and operators of Schultz Construction in Albany, NY.  In 2004, after retiring from the construction business, they moved to  Raleigh and began to focus more on God’s business.  They soon founded the Street Samaritans and Gospel Ministry, whose mission was to plead for both lives and souls, primarily outside abortion clinics and high schools.

Since 2009, Bill and Jeanette have been a regular presence on public sidewalks outside Wake County (Raleigh area) high schools.  In addition to displaying abortion photos, they have delivered God’s mail by handing out tens of thousands of pieces of pro-life and abstinence literature.

Welcome aboard, Bill and Jeanette!  We are already seeing great things from you!

If you’d like to share in this work, it’s quick, easy, and secure to support CBR online.  Whatever you can do will make a huge difference.   To support Bill and Jeanette’s work, designate your gift for “Carolina Projects (SE-NS).”

Jacqueline Hawkins is a CBR Project Director and a regular FAB contributor.

Philip Hamilton speaking to a pro-choice supporter at the GAP on Market Square in Knoxville, Tennessee.

by Philip Hamilton

The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR) recently displayed photos of aborted fetuses in downtown Knoxville, reminding passersby on Market Square that abortion decapitates and dismembers little human beings.  CBR’s display, known as the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP), exposes the devastating effects of a “woman’s right to choose” by focusing attention on what is actually being chosen.

The Market Square GAP was my first one as a new staffer for the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform.  During the course of the day, I encountered many people on both sides of the debate.

I spoke with a homeless couple who had lost custody of their children due to drug issues; they were staunchly pro-life.  They said that while their children did not have an ideal childhood, there is always the option of adoption.

Later, I got a pro-choice progressive to admit that late term abortions were morally wrong.  I told her about Planned Parenthood’s sale of fetal organs.  We discussed Virginia’s ultrasound law, which she supported because a woman should at least be able to see an ultrasound of the child before being able to kill him.  I told her that there should be at least a 24-hour waiting period after the ultrasound is done, so that women can have more time to make and informed choices between life or death for their children.  [The more time women have to think about their decision, the more likely they are to choose life.]  She supported a waiting period after I discussed the reasons why the a waiting period is actually “pro-woman.”  After seeing GAP, this progressive woman rejected some of the most extreme pro-abortion positions.  Not a complete conversion, but it’s a start, and not a bad one in only 15 minutes.

At the end of the day, I spoke with a woman with two young women in tow.  She supported our message, but ordered her children to look away from the pictures as we talked.  In spite of her belief that children should not look at aborted fetuses in a public square, she believed that teenagers and adults must see them before they can make an informed decision on the effects of “choice.”

We have a choice, too.  We have a choice whether to spend our time and treasure on winning hearts, changing minds, and saving lives.  Will you devote your time and treasure to stand for the right to life?

Intact abortion, with beating heart.

by Gregg Cunningham

Some in the media have falsely claimed that the intact abortion shown in CBR’s video is actually a miscarriage, not an abortion.

Medical malpractice lawsuits have become so common that OB/GYNs practice defensive medicine.  They protect themselves by over-diagnosing, over-treating and over-prescribing.  No doctor delivering this baby as a preemie in a hospital would fail to provide neonatal intensive care.  Even if he had no compassion for the baby or his parents, the doctor would provide care to avoid being sued for negligence.  Warren Hern, in his book “Abortion Practice,” warns of the difficulty in estimating fetal ages.  A baby moving as vigorously as this one is presumptively entitled to care and would receive it — unless the attending physician is an abortionist, which is the case here.

Miscarried embryos and fetuses are virtually all still births involving a baby who expired in the uterus and was later born dead.  A preemie in a hospital is born alive and given intensive care — not slapped around in a pan as happened here with a baby who survived the abortion depicted at the beginning of the video.

Gregg Cunningham is the Executive Director of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR).

WARNING: THE VIDEO LINKED IN THIS PIECE CONTAINS GYNECOLOGICAL IMAGERY WHICH MAY BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR SOME VIEWERS

In the video (below), you can clearly see the heart beating at around the 4-minute mark.  For added clarity, expand to full-screen mode.

by the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform

Carly Fiorina, CNN Republican presidential debate, September 16, 2015:

“Watch a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while someone says, ‘We have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.’ This is about the character of our nation, and if we will not stand up and force President Obama to veto this [Planned Parenthood defunding] bill, shame on us.”

Ms. Fiorina was referring to a Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR) video depicting a few seconds of a 17-½ week fetus, still alive and moving, following an intact-delivery abortion. In the link below we post the entire unedited video. The total running time is approximately 13 minutes and the video is in five segments as the camera operator turns the camera on and off.

CBR and the Center for Medical Progress (CMP), in whose undercover Planned Parenthood investigative video the CBR abortion footage appears, have been falsely accused of misrepresenting a miscarriage as an abortion. The first segment of the unedited video depicts the abortion itself, with the baby delivered alive and struggling in the abortionist’s gloved hand. Segments 2 and 3 depict the baby still moving in a stainless steel pan after repeatedly being handled abusively by the abortionist. Segments 4 and 5 are static gynecological shots of the baby’s mother.

This unedited version of the disputed footage proves incontestably that this termination is an abortion. Mothers at risk of miscarriage present at hospitals, not abortion clinics. Hospitals are in the business of sustaining pregnancies and saving babies. Abortion clinics are in the business of terminating pregnancies and killing babies. This video depicts a termination and the subsequent abuse and neglect of a preemie obviously delivered alive. No attempt is made to provide the neonatal intensive care a hospital would extend to a wanted baby. It is possible that the abortionists performing this termination violated both state and federal law by withholding care from a baby who survived an abortion.

Ms. Fiorina made reference to a baby’s heart still beating while its brain was being harvested (a process which Planned Parenthood’s senior director of medical services calls “digging”) and a former StemExpress “procurement technician” says, “I’m sitting here and I’m looking at this fetus and its heart is beating, and I don’t know what to think” (National Review, August 19, 2015). The article adds that “… her StemExpress supervisor instructed her to cut through the face of the fetus in order to get the brain.”

The unedited version of the abortion linked below depicts an intact-delivery termination and Planned Parenthood partner StemExpress admits through its CEO (Cate Dyer), “Oh yeah, if you had intact cases, which we’ve done a lot, we sometimes ship those back to our lab in its entirety …” (The Daily Signal, August 21, 2015).

A World Magazine article, August 19, 2015, describes “… an aborted baby’s beating heart, a post-abortion occurrence that’s not uncommon, according to Ben Van Handel, executive director of Novogenix Laboratories.”

Ms. Fiorina’s characterizations are not hyperbole.

The terms of our abortion clinic access agreements explicitly forbid us from disclosing any information which could identify the abortion providers from whose clinics we obtain imagery. Dates, locations, affiliations and staff and patient information are confidential. Violating these prohibitions could subject CBR to legal liability and jeopardize clinic access for current and future projects. We are even obligated to delete the audio track on all of our videos.

The Grantham Collection is a component of the CBR abortion imagery archive. Questions related to this very disturbing video below should be directed to Gregg Cunningham, cbr@cbrinfo.org, 949-206-0600.

WARNING: THIS VIDEO CONTAINS GYNECOLOGICAL IMAGERY WHICH MAY BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR SOME VIEWERS

Who’da thunk it?  Who would have believed that a top-tier candidate for president would feature part of a CBR aborted-baby video in her advertisement?

The more the leftists try to pretend that this video isn’t there, the more they discredit themselves.

Yes, the baby in the video isn’t the same exact baby whose face was cut open to harvest the brain, but so what?  Planned Parenthood still cut through a baby’s face to harvest the brain.  And their only defense is to say, “No, the baby in that video isn’t the same one we killed; we cut open the face to get the brain of a different baby!”  Do they really think people will buy that?

by Maggie Egger

Michelle, co-president of SFL at OU, speaks with a fellow student during GAP.

During GAP at Oakland University (OU) in March, a young man approached our display, then quickly became very emotional.  He stepped back from the crowd and started yelling that women should have the choice to abort, because they could be in really terrible situations, and we can’t judge their particular circumstances.

Then it became personal.  He said when his mom was in college, with a promising career ahead of her, she became pregnant by a man who was not much more than a casual hook-up.  She dropped out of school and sacrificed her career to care for him, the unplanned pregnancy.  He said she was miserable because of it.  She married his father, but they went on to have an abusive and dysfunctional marriage and family.  By this point, the young man was crying and his voice started to shake.  He said that he wished that his mom had aborted him, because then maybe she would have had a chance at a better, happier life.

Then Michelle Anderson, co-president of OU Students for Life, stepped forward.  She said, “I’m sorry that you had to go through that as a kid, and that your mom had to go through that.  But I’m so glad she didn’t abort you.  I am so glad that you’re here today.  We value your life, no matter how it came to be.  You are valuable and you are loved.”  They continued talking quietly for a little while.  He calmed down significantly, and before he left I heard Michelle say, “Can I give you a hug?”  He accepted.

I observed several interesting things in this encounter.  First, Michelle’s demeanor was so calm and loving, it completely diffused a very emotionally charged situation.  Second, she didn’t try to debate abortion.  That’s not what this young man needed to hear at that moment.  Third, the reaction of the pro-abortion protesters was perhaps the most depressing and disturbing thing that I’ve seen on campus in a while.

The young man started off with the slogan of “personal choice” and of course the pro-abortion protesters cheered this.  However, when he said he wished his mother had aborted him, most of them took their reasoning to its logical conclusion and continued to agree with him.  In essence they were saying to him, “We wouldn’t care if you were dead.”  That’s the mindset that we encounter in people who have, for decades, reduced the preborn to mere clumps of cells, instead of whole, distinct, living, valuable, human persons.  And while that mindset is depressing, when it is juxtaposed with the pro-life view, the result can be encouraging.  After all, if everyone always valued all life from fertilization to natural death, it would be no big deal for Michelle to tell that young man that she values his life, not only in that moment, but from the very first moment of his existence.

Maggie Egger is a CBR Project Director in Virginia and a regular FAB(ulous) contributor.

With our prenatal development GAP sign, we show how a “clump of cells” is endowed with arms and legs and fingers and toes.  Some “clump of cells.”

by Kendra Wright

At Tennessee Tech, a Middle Eastern student told me that he is Muslim and in his country, killing the unborn is just like killing a born person.  But he knew very little about abortion.

He was very shocked to hear that 1.2 million die every year in this country from abortion.

He asked why people get abortions and if “not wanting” the child is a frequent justification.  I confirmed that this is often the case.

I started explaining the difference between a wanted child and an unwanted child.  If a child is wanted, we call it a baby.  If it is unwanted, we call it a clump of cells.

He was shocked.  “A clump of cells?!”

He could see right away that a baby is not just a clump of cells and calling it such is ridiculous.

Kendra Wright is a CBR project director and a regular FAB contributor.

Perpetrators of genocide always have their “reasons.”

by Kendra Wright

At UNC Wilmington, I asked a young man what he thought.  He immediately said he was pro-choice, that people have good reasons for having abortions.

I pointed out that even if I had good reasons for killing him, that wouldn’t make it right or acceptable.  He agreed.

We spoke a while.  After a lull in the conversation I asked him if he was still pro-choice.  He said yes and reverted to “people have good reasons” to abort.

I said, “Wait a minute, we already talked about this. Good reasons do not justify killing human beings.”  Again, he agreed.  Then he fell silent.

I asked again if he was still pro-choice, but this time, his mind was changing.  “Hmm, I don’t know,” he said.

He went on to say that people are ignorant about the science of human development and that he appreciated our use of graphic images.

Once he understood the implications of his pro-choice view he realized he couldn’t firmly hold it.  That is what pictures do: they neutralize the opposition, convert the neutral, activate the converted, and energize the active.

Kendra Wright is a CBR project director and a regular FAB contributor.

Beth Fox and I exhort Liberty students to be pro-life with their actions as well as their thoughts.

by Kendra Wright

Who needs to see abortion photos?  Everyone?  Even those that are already pro-life?

Absolutely.

This point can seem confusing.  If you already believe something, you don’t need to be convinced of it.  Right?

Yet, it is clear that Christians are doing almost nothing to stop the killing in the culture.  They are even killing their own children at staggering rates.  One in five women who abort identifies herself as a born-again or evangelical Christian.

Secular universities devote massive resources to training advocates for the abortion industry, but Christian universities like Liberty University have zero training programs to prepare Christians students for the pro-life mission field.  Zip, zero, nada.

In fact, Liberty has even forbidden pro-life students from displaying abortion victim photos on campus.

It is a tragedy every time a savable baby at Liberty is killed by abortion.  But CBR is working to change all that.

Beth Fox is one Liberty student who is willing to stand up and be counted.  On several occasions, Beth, (CBR Project Director) Maggie Egger, and I have stood in front of the Liberty library with a sign showing an abortion victim photo.  The sign first asks if Jesus would use a bloody picture, then answers that question with a picture of the Crucifixion.

Many student studied this sign and discussed it with their friends as they walked by.  Two students that gave us a thumbs up.

As we were packing up to leave, a professor came up and asked why we were there.  He wasn’t against the use of the pictures, but he was confused about their use at Liberty.  He asked, “But why are you here on a Christian campus?  Isn’t everybody here already pro-life?”

Maggie stopped him with her reply, “Are they doing anything about it?”

Good question.  The pictures challenge Christian complacency.

Kendra Wright is a CBR project director and a regular FAB contributor.

CBR’s Jackie Hawkins boldly showing the truth

by Kendra Wright

Sometimes people say we would be more effective if we “just passed out brochures.”  One student at East Carolina University (ECU) suggested we  “take it down a notch.”

Martin Luther King and William Wilberforce were not afraid to be bold …  and they didn’t conquer social injustice with informational brochures.  Several at ECU realized the effectiveness of our strategy and the need for boldness.

At ECU, one man stopped and faced the truth.  He exclaimed, “Wow, I had no idea this is what abortion was!  They are so tiny … and that is a hand!” He would not have known if we had not showed him.

Another student claimed that the display was “”too much.“” CBR’s Jane Bullington explained the history behind using pictures and how we focus on changing minds.  He said, “I see what you are doing and respect your right to do it.  If this had just been a brochure handed out, you and I wouldn’t be talking.”

A gentleman who regularly walks the ECU campus and prays scripture over it was so glad we were there.  He too had used abortion photos and had stood his ground when told to stop.  Other Christians and pro-lifers had told him to tamp it down, and he said NO!

CBR also says NO!  We will not stop giving the unborn a voice!

Kendra Wright is a CBR project director and a regular FAB contributor.

Pro-Life Cage Match: The Tussle in Tulsa

It could have been billed as “The Tussle in Tulsa.”

On April 25, Gregg Cunningham of Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR) debated T. Russell Hunter of Abolish Human Abortion (AHA) on the topic of pro-life incrementalism vs. pro-life immediatism.  You can link to the debate here or watch below.

At the heart of Hunter’s position are the notions that (a) attempts to save some babies and moms from abortion by passing abortion restrictions actually amount to a defacto endorsement of the practice (i.e., “abortion is OK as long as it is restricted”) and (b) the babies saved in the short-term by incrementalist measures will be fewer than the babies saved in the long-term if we would all abandon incrementalism in favor of immediatism.

No matter what we may think of the issues, the debate, or the personalities involved, we praise God for Mr. Hunter and for AHA …  If the rest of the “pro-life” church were doing as much, this would have been over long, long ago.

Hunter and AHA have ruffled the feathers of many in the pro-life movement by harshly criticizing their methods and motives.  Of course, we at FAB must always be open to criticism; we ourselves have not failed to challenge those in our movement who reject or even suppress the only strategy that can ultimately win.  As with any debate, the distinction between instructive criticism and destructive divisiveness can often be a matter of whose ox is being gored.

But for the sake of babies, moms, and families, we must always be open to exhortation and correction (2 Timothy 4:2).  Sometimes we receive it, and sometimes we dole it out.  In this regard, most of us have no problem embracing Acts 20:35, where God tells us it is more blessed to give than to receive.

The Tussle in Tulsa resulted from Hunter’s public challenge calling for any pro-life leader to debate him on incrementalism.  Cunningham accepted.  He is widely regarded as the premier pro-life strategerist on the planet.  (Here at FAB, that belief is unanimous.)

The most compelling points made by Cunningham:

1. Martin Luther King was an absolutist in his goal of equal rights, but an incrementalist in his approach to civil rights legislation.
2. Similarly, William Wilberforce fought for the complete abolition of slavery, but he also endorsed incremental laws that would reduce suffering in the short-term.
3. Even God Himself, although an absolutist when it comes to sin, was (is?) an incrementalist when giving the Mosaic Law.
4. There is no conflict between reducing suffering in the short-term and abolishing injustice in the long-term.  They are not mutually exclusive; we can and should do both.

As a side note, Cunningham addressed Hunter’s criticism of those of us who raise money for pro-life work.  He noted (and praised) AHA’s use of abortion imagery obtained by CBR and provided to others in the movement free of charge.  This is made possible only by an enormous amount of fundraising.  Cunningham observed that Russell does raise funds, but “he just lets me do it for him.”  Then he quickly added, “And I don’t mind that.”

One issue that arose during the Q&A was CBR’s policy regarding spiritual discussions vs. social justice discussions in the presentation of the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP).  FAB will address that issue in a separate post.

In the aftermath of the debate, a number of summaries and analyses have been posted, most of them in favor of Cunningham’s performance/position.  Notables:

1. Scott Klusendorf: Debate Between Gregg Cunningham and T. Russell Hunter
2. Jonathon Van Maren:  Four observations from the Cunningham vs. Hunter debate
3. Jill Stanek: Abolition of Reason: Pro-Life Apologists Deconstruct “Immediatist” Ideology as Presented in Cunningham-Hunter Debate
4. Jill Stanek and Clinton Wilcox blog posts:

• Prologue
• Part I: Let babies die today, we can save the rest later
• Part II: There’s only one way to cut down a tree?
• Part III: Social justice history vs TR Hunter
• Part IV: Straw men and the Bible
• Part V: Sacrificing children to the idol of abolitionism
• Part VI: Christians and the legislative process
• Part VII: So fundraising is wrong?
• Epilogue

If Stanek & Co. get their way, the “Tussle in Tulsa” will now and forevermore be known as “The Tulsa Takedown.”  But there were dissenting opinions:

1. Don Cooper: Former Pro-Life Leader Reviews the Cunningham/Hunter Debate on Immediatism
2. AHA Blog: What about these babies?
3. Abolish Human Abortion Facebook Page (scroll down)
4. T. Russell Hunter Facebook Page (scroll down)

No matter what we may think of the issues, the debate, or the personalities involved, we praise God for Mr. Hunter and for AHA, because (a) they are using abortion photos to expose the cruelty of abortion and (b) they are sharing the Gospel of Jesus.  If the rest of the “pro-life” church were doing as much, this would have been over long, long ago.

As to the debate and the issues, you be the judge.  See it here:

Philip Hamilton

CBR is pleased to announce the appointment of Philip Hamilton as our newest project director in Virginia!

Philip was born in Norman, Oklahoma and spent part of his childhood in Germantown, Maryland while his father worked at NASA.  Philip currently resides in Springfield, Virginia.

He has a Bachelor’s of Science in Administration of Justice from George Mason University (GMU), a Paralegal Certification from GMU, an advanced Paralegal Certification from Virginia Tech, and a Master’s of Science in Administration of Justice and Security from the University of Phoenix.

He has been active in politics for more than a decade, with a growing emphasis on the pro-life movement after joining the GMU Students for Life (SFL).  This illustrates the effect that CBR is having on campus.  CBR started the GMU SFL, recruited and trained the founding president, and continue to bring abortion photos to the GMU campus every two weeks.  All of this influenced Philip to join the pro-life movement full-time!

Recently, Philip has written several pro-life articles for The Fairfax Free Citizen.  Philip has also written articles supporting the Unborn Child Pain Capable Act, promoting counseling for women considering abortion, and supporting the GMU SFL.

He looks forward to winning hearts, changing minds, and saving lives at CBR.  Welcome aboard, Philip!  We’re expecting great things from you!

If you’d like to support Philip (or any of our staff members), it’s quick, easy, and secure to support CBR online.  Whatever you can do will make a huge difference.  To support Philip’s work, designate your gift for “Virginia Project Director (SE-PAH).”

CBR’s Kendra Wright explaining the pictures to a group of journalism students.

It was by far the best campus Christian organization we have ever encountered.  They are Ratio Christi and they don’t have time for the “pizza for Jesus” tomfoolery that wastes so much time in youth ministry today.  Young Christians are very weak because nobody is preparing them to take a stand.  But Ratio Christi is different; their unofficial motto seems to be, “We’re trying to pick a fight!”  And they are good at it!

The fight we helped them pick was over child sacrifice at the U of North Carolina at Wilmington (UNCW).  Ratio Christi, along with College Republicans (CRs), invited us to bring our Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) and Pro Life Training Academy (PLTA) to UNCW for the very first time.  By God’s grace and your support, we made quite a splash.

Our display location was along the Chancellor’s Walk, which is the primary walkway to get from anywhere at UNCW to just about anywhere else.

Campus newspaper coverage of GAP:

• The Ever-Growing Controversy: Pro-choice or Pro-life? (published about a month before GAP)
• Genocide Awareness Project comes to UNCW
• Controversial Comparison of Genocide and Abortion

Local news coverage of GAP:

• Two UNCW student organizations bring controversial display to campus
• Controversial display has people talking at UNCW

Lightning was an issue both days on campus.  For our GAP displays, CBR has adopted the NCAA protocols for outdoor athletic events (although our staff and volunteers are normally much less exposed than the typical baseball center fielder).  We vacate the site whenever lightning is detected within a 6-mile radius (less than 30 seconds between lightning flash and sound of thunder), and stay in a sheltered location for 30 minutes beyond the last such strike.

Emily McGowan of Liberty University explains how genocide perpetrators always dehumanize their victims.

For the first time in history, CBR exposed the horror at Columbus State University (CSU) in Georgia.  We were hosted by the CSU Advocates for Life (AFL), the student group we started earlier this year.

We were joined by five students from Liberty University in Virginia who spent their spring break winning hearts, changing minds, and saving lives.  We pray for the day these students expose abortion on their own campus, without interference from the Liberty University staff.

The trip was funded by the Chattahoochee Valley United for Life (CVUL), a chapter of Georgia Right to Life (GRTL).  Over the years, we have worked with many GRTL chapters to bring GAP to Georgia.  This trip was a huge answer to prayer.

CBR and CVUL hosed our Pro-Life Training Academy (PLTA) to prepare members and students alike to articulate and defend the pro-life movement, even in a hostile environment.

Check out the local media coverage:

• WBRC TV: Controversial images on CSU campus add fire to the abortion debate

A middle-aged woman told us, “I am so glad you are here. Folks don’t understand what they are doing. I have 50 year-old friends who are still hurting from abortion. It goes so much deeper than people realize.”  Indeed.